Global Warming: What do YOU think?

I have recently become aware of two camps of thought with regard to global warming/climate change, niether one relating to religion vs science. On one side is the internationally recognized theory of rapid devastating change and on the other a token uncertainty of the actual changes occuring in terms of what effects we may be facing and how quickly they will emerge.

As a "regular sort" I don't really know a lot of the science involved with our changing conditions and so I guess that puts me in between the two in this arguement. They both have very valid points and the answer to this riddle is important- so what do you all think?

Replies to This Discussion

I do question the work of the anti-AGW scientists as well. Presently, I am unaware of any misconduct on their part. And based on some of their work, NASA has had to retract some of it's previous findings. There is at least one other example where the anit-AGW folks science caused the AGW scientists to change their findings. Wow! A real consensus.

Again, I am not trying to polarize the issue. I am interested in legitimate science.

equinox, pretty much everything the AGW-deniers do is misconduct. They lie about the data and the conclusions, they distort the science, they pursue crackpot theories and continue to promote them after they have been debunked, they complain that their substandard work won't be accepted by peer reviewed journals but won't admit that's because their work isn't good enough, and they smear the scientists, among other things. You're not seeing their misconduct because you're not looking.

Can you try to be more moderate? Many good scientists have contributed to the GW debate who are skeptical of AGW. some of McIntyre's work has caused NASA GISS to adjust their findings? Your polarizing language isn't helping the debate.

The current theory is in question due to scandal. Shouldn't we at least take caution and re-evaluate?

Of the 4 main research centers watching climate science, 3 have been shown to be using the same data:
1. CRU in the UK
2. NOAA in the US
3. NASA GISS in the US
4. Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)

Two of these have been caught up in scientific misconduct. A climate scientist in Albany has been charged with scientific misconduct. A climate scientist in Belfast is withholding data. A climate center in New Zealand has admitted to manipulating the data based on CRU's techniques.

So far, I am not hearing about any misconduct or FOIA request denials among Heliogenic or non-AGW climate scientists.

I am not sure what is so unusual about questioning the climate science that was wrought with questionable methods?

There is at least one scandal. AGW is not in question, except by industry flaks and their dupes.

Nobody would bother filing a FOI request with the AGW-deniers for two reasons: They have no actual science worth hiding, and in any case, they're generally not government researchers, so they would not be subject to FOI laws. Besides, it's clear that pretty much everything they do is dishonest. Nice try.

You seem incapable of grasping that the whole of climate research into AGW is not tainted by the theft of CRU files, because it is not based solely on CRU files.

"Technologically, intellectually and politically, science resides somewhere near the center of our culture. I speak of that society, those persons...who value their freedom, honor their responsibilities, appreciate their ignorance and are willing to keep learning."
Timothy Ferris

Oddly enough...based on one Infidel Guy podcasts, the majority of members of the Flat Earth society are atheists. Very unexpected. We may need to retire the charge against theists. I don't know any theists who think the earth is flat.